crash to descre at is ing on now. they like to lookt it a a correction that has to wook itself out. what they don't know and readily rrybout how far down the correction has to go, how long it will take and exactly how many more people will be hurt in the process when the market decides, if it decides to turn around. that was then. back to my hair now, what do you think? you think it can' happen now. you obviously forgotten bumps in the between. the cashette in 1989 triggered by a fail leveraged buyout. 9/11 that stopped trading for week and brought an avalanche of sales and big sale orders when it did. financial meltdown four years ago this very month and spd computer driven trading snaf peppered in between this year. the issue isn't can we have another crash, the issue is
how big when it comes the dow sold off nearly a quarter of its value, wiped out in a single day. that would b the equivalent of the dow umbling more than 3000 points today. still back in 1987 every major blip and bump since we always heard the same stock song and dce, didn't we. can't happen again. won' happen again. too many protections now. the circuit breake that were supposed to arrest panic but did not. the curbs that were meant to ease us into a freefall and ease us out of a freefall that could not. tr as we might new gremlins keep tesng our might. that is one thing we learn from market history, the smtest programs, the fancy evident algorithms and canny leverage or daring derivative or i don't know, savvy swap can't prevent slop. beware those who say hisry can't repeat itse. history proves it always, always does. to former bb&t jo allison who was president o that
bank 25 years ago today on the very real warning signs it can happen again today. john, a pleasure to have you. you don't look a day older my friend b what do you make of ten and now and everyone says, well,ou know that is ancient history. what do you say? >> goodfterno, neil. great to be with you. let me try to give context i was president of bb&t during that correction. it is imrtant to understand exactly what happened because the correction didn't happen on a short-tm thing. it happened on a long-term phenomenon.% started with johnson back in the '60s wen he wanted a war on povertynd vietnam war and didn't want t tax people to do that, so the feds started printing money. that connued in 1970s that resulted in massive inflation. the fed had to correct the mess it made. raised the prime rate to 81%. that created severe economic correction and fall in the market. in a way it was short and clean and govnment dn't do anything. we startrted on real solid and
real growth. alan greenspan who was the new head of the fed really arbitrarily decided real growth was a bad thi the misconstrued and thought it was inflation. he started arbitrarily raising interest rates. neil: just to explain u're an enencyopediaor people who hadn't be older as we are. ronald reagan was president and point often missed in histy ronald reag's respon to the crisis was essentially, don't go overboard with big fixes and expensive xes. the famous query when asked about the falloff, i think he said something to the effe markets go up, markets go down. in other words, don't make a mountain out ofwhat could be a comparatively a molehill and overd it setting up for t next crash. they kept it besides circuit breakers and curbs, they sort o lited it to that. cynics and critics of ronald reagan said that set up scandals and everything else. but i really do think it
kept the governmt out o screwing up somethi that they would only me worse. what do you think? >> absolutely because the market needed t correct. resources needed to be allocad. we were misallocating resources because of inflation and they needed to be reallocated. that's when we decided to have real growth. when the market prevents governments from clearing we don't have real growth and struggling like we do today. this is reity today. bernanke is printing money like crazy for four years. stock market is reincoming mehow interest rates will be low. pes are vulnerable particularly in tech stocks or h high p-e stocks. if we do get growth and d is forced to raise interest ratethe market is vulnerable. the vulnerabilities long-term bond market where the fed is arbitrarily buying down the long end. ilthat is the next bubble. everyingle market selloff whether single day event or dramatic turn down of months
or years is triggered by a bubble that burst or at least pricked and air is colling out. you could argue with real este in '. you could argue the mania of leveraged buyouts in '89. meltdown of real estate again. some say it is bond mark and art first quarterly low interest rates th time around as you were up toing on. ii this the modern day bubble. >> i have been in the banking busess 40 yars. i think every buble has been fundamentally created by the federal reserve. if we had stable monetary syem based on gold standard we would have much less volatility. the fed always overreacts. neil: you're right. >> theyryto fix things and make a mess. i don't think markets are anywhere near as volatile as the fedis. i thin the f creates a lotof this market volatility by mleadg people, trying to do economicalcation -- economical class. neil: that is interesting. fed is morevolatile than the markets.
always words of wisdom. thank you my friend. good to see you again. >> thank you,eil. neil: maybe wall street isn't pulling something fancy or washington ding nothing at all nothi. edward jone managing director says congress and cliff almost begs thescal markets fall offthat cliff. he puts his money where his mouth is. he is one of 60 bankershat sent off a letter to washington demanding action. he is a partisan barber. we're notlaming either of you guys, do something and do mething soon. have you gotten any response? >> the response that we've gotten, neil has been primarily internal at our firm. they're glad t see us speaking up, lendi our voice to the need for bipartisan action as well as president and congress to come together so the u.s. doesn't go off a fiscal cliff. neil: getting a pat on the back from saying somethg bold is a far cry from
tually following up on yourecommendation and doing something bold. >> well, no, that's very edward jones helps serious long term individual investors to reach their financial goals. we work with very conservative individuals who are frustrated, who are fearful right now, who are very concernedthe lack of action, gridlock in washington will cause e --. neil:what do you say to them, to you, or bankers that signedhe lett? they're on the front line lookg at torpedoes. talk about mltdown there could be e same for you, right? >> it is not reonableo believe that there's anything goo will come out of going over t fiscal cliff. it will adversely affect the markets. neil: what about delaying it? talk is delaying it? what about delaying it six months? >> by delaying it what you will do neil is buy some time. you wil buy some time regardless how the election turns out fuy we can get the president and core to have an open-minded, bipartisan discussion with some longer term perspective that will
address both spending as well as the revenue sideof the budget. neil: james,ou're an excellent read of the maets. one of the reasons why i respect the he out ofou. i wonder how the maets respond to delay with the hope that that delay produces an agreemen on a simpler tax system, a budget reform, younow, hope always sprin eernal but you and i are probably old enough to remember it doesn't always pan out that way. so you get your delay. the markets don't share our collective hopend confidence that you strike a deal. they might sell off, righ oh, and agencies might say, oh, you're punting again, you washington. and there will be hell to pay, a big market selloff. what dyou think? >> neil, i think some of the actity you're seeinggin the market right now today and more recently ts week may be anticipating the fiscal cliff and theack of wiingness or,ovement toward addressing it. there, again, i will repeat self.
the is nothing good that will come outor allowing us t go over the cliff. neil: you're exactly right james, thanks for taking time. >> my pleasure. neil: what is the 25th anniversary, is it gol, silver? i have no idea. it is not a happy one. always good having you, james. thank you very much. >> thank you very mu, neil. neil: the way i will be monday forhe final that's presidtial debate. we start things f at 8:00 p.m. going through midnight. don't you know the fiscal cliff will come ou and romney forces are saying is foreign policy debate they will work like crazy how this economic abyss -pthreats our national security. tch creative ways they bring all of this into that. by the way, mitt romney is breaking out his swing state secret weapon and his ne is pa, rand paul. the senator hitting the road for romne but before he does he stops by here first. don't laugh, romney's entire campaign could get a jolt becausof this. >> people seem to be very
neil: yet another sign of an unhealthy economy, thi could make you sick, very sick. more people are collecng full government health benefits than are actually working full time, first time in this country's history that happened. the vernment is growing, jobs are not and that's got reason's magazine worried. peter, that is incredible. i didn't know that was statistically possible but i guess it is. what do yomake of it?
>> the way medicaid works economy gets weaker more people end up enrolled in medicaid. medica is the big one. we se rise in medicare rollment because the baby boom generation is turning 65 and hit retirement age and eoll in medicare. with medicaid, the way the program works, if you fall below on poverty scale you will be enrolled in medicaid at that point. when we see 10 million peop, additionally enrolled in medicaid as we ha since 2008, that point there were about 42 million people on the prram. now there is 52 million people, that is bad sign for the economy, it means the economy is not producing the kind of ealth, the kind of jobs that we need, people need to have their own health insurance. neil: you know what i worry about, peter in this debate, you and i chatted about it before, what got to be the straction in the romy 47 thing. a lot of people got upset, noses properly out of joint, that included soldiers and retirees many who paid into
th system for aot of years and they were rigly upset but when you step back, the question missed accuracy of the percentage. how did we get to 47% paying no income taxes and tha many relyin on government ben of some sort or another? not that many deserve it but essentially doubled since i got out of college. as we know thatwas just a few years ago. all right, i'm lying about that. but my point how do we get that under control? the math doesn't favorur continuing to do so? >> you know, that is a good question. i think the rlly worrying thing here is the poor results that we see from medicaid. not just th the program is expanding. this is a pgram that has surprisingly badealth outcomes. if you look and compare people on medicai versus people who are uninsured entirely cncer survival rates for medicaid patients are basically, almost no better. they did a study a couple years backooking at people who had major surgery under
medicaid andith no insurance at all, people with medicaid hadortality rates twice as high, more expensive, longer hospital stays. wh we're trying to do with the obama administration wantto do is expand this program. obamacare expand medicaid by somewhere between 10 and 15 million people or the next decade or so. that's really worrying. rather than trying toare back these programs, focus them on the poor,eedy, folks whoely need it, what we're doing is expanding them, turning them into middle class entitlements. neil: it doesn't address something that goes on behind the scenes. doors who cringe dealing with those almost going to pay the bill entirely on the government's dime and that, it is notto put them in sort of evil terms but, that, that expands the pool of available tated out there anand there's only so many doctors and there is only so many mri machines and so many available treatments. by just sheer math alone we're going to spread
ourselves pretty thin, right? >> medicd beneficiarie have some of t hardest time finding providers to see them. neil: sure. >> a b part of that becaus reimbursement rates arsoow. rather again, rather than scale the program back, focus it on the peop who really need it what we're trying to do is exxand and we're going to be the spreading doctors thin. whate will end up doing paying ctors even less ile at the same time expanding number of people who are insured through this program we then expecthem to treat. will not add up. it will not work. neil: something isery wrong when you started medicare itself, before medicaid, started out as $66 million under president johnsonn 195 or 6, my memory escapese and it last grown to thihalf trillion dollar behemoth today. it staed ou th focused attempt for people who really, really need it as it did with food stamps those genuinely poor and peop who really need it.
we get to the baooning figures, some more and more getting in and some don't need it a all and could ite fend for themselv but sets up dependency that is scary. >> medicaid when it started in theid 1960s inflation adjusted cost was about $9 billion. lalast year th federal government spent autut $275 billion. neil: oh, my gosh. >> sates abo another $100 billion. what the obama administration wants to do is double the fedal spending on thihe ne decade. by 202 the plan is spend roughly $600 bilon on a program. this is not e way to reform a program. th're expanding a program thatust doesn't work. really a bad sign for the eeonomy. it is a bad sign for people'sealt it is a bad sign for taxpxpays. neil: peter, thankou very much. as i tell on people on the show. not a le or right or green or blue. the green is not there to keep doing theind stuff
peteras elabating on. it is not there. it is one-stop place we tell you. it is not a democric bashing, this is not aa3 republican bashing, the numbers aren't there to support it. we better co up with better math because this ain't cutting it. you remember this doozy from mitt romney a couple mont ago. >> i can' tell you anything about the vp pcess, neil, you know tha if i did, i would hav to, you kow have to come after you with my men in black flashlight and erase your memory. neil: thatas kind of funny. but i thin he got himself a comedy coach and came up with something even funnier, because lastight, this guy, had them in stitches. i'm m going to te you, the dividends are already showing up. >> the campaign can require a lot of wardrobe changes. we bue jeans in the morning perhaps. suits for a lunch
fund-raiser. sport coat for dinner but it is nice to finally relax a where at ann and i wear around the house. [laughter] we have big dreams. one is for a clean, domestic energy future that ps us in control. our undant natural gas is already saving us money, producing cleaner electricity, putting us to work here in america and supporting wind and solar. though all energy development comewith some risk, we're committed safely and responsibly producinnatural gas. america's natural gas... putting in control of our energy future, now. so, which supeast 4g lte service would yochoose, based on this chart ? don't rush into it, i'm not looking for thfastt answer. a different chart. e going that way, does that ke a difference ? look at verizon.
it's so much more than the other ones. so what if we just chaed e format altogether ? isn't that the exact same thing ? it's pretty clear. still sticking with verizon. verin. more 4g lte coverage an all other nworks combined. nepink lemonade 5-hour energy? 5-hournergy supports the avon foundatn for women breast cancer crude. so i can get the energized feeling i need and support a great cause? i'm sold. pink lemonade 5-hour energy? yeah and a portion of every sale goes to the avon untion for women breast cancer crusade. i'm sold. new pink lemonade 5-hour energy. get the alert, energized feeling yoneed and supporbreast ccer research and access to care. olaf's pizza palace gets the most rewards of any small business crit card! pizza!!!!! [ garth ] ol's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, everday! helium delivery. put it on mspark card! [ pop! ]
>> of course the economy is on everybody's mind. the unemployment rate at theowest level since i took office. i don't have aoke here. i thought it would be useful to remind everybody that the unemployment is the lowest it's been since i took offi. [appuse] he knows how to seize the moment this president. and already has a compelling new campaignlogan. you're better off now than you were four weeks ago. [laughter] il: well, both candidates trading zinges at last
night's al smith dinner. we're used to s the president drop a few fun necessary. but mitt romney h the ste like richard pryor than richard nixon. with recent gains in likeability poll, don't dismiss this. because it has a serious impact. for a few laughs maybe the governor pushed himself over the top. might be premature but who beer on all things political details than guy who is walking encyclopedia on them, fox news digital edit, chris stirewalt. i had the opportity to be there last night. i got to tell you it was i as much in his demeanor and deliry than the stuff he sa that blew folks away in at room. and, doe this stuff resote? does it have an impact? what do you think? >> well, here's the deal, comedy is about timing, comedy is also about expectations just like politics, it is about expectations.
an mitt romney knew that since he had this reputation as being a stiff, and being this rich guy and being all of that stuff, a tea totaller who doesn't drink he h this expectation. he went in and ableo use thaa to flip it a bit. and cast himself as somebody who cod poke fun at himself and poke fun at the president and laugh. he was very funny. he clearly had good kes but also delivered them the righway. look there is comedy routine th will put everybody over the top, but at you saw in romney was the same thing you saw in ronald reagan, that you saw in bill clint, and that you saw in george w. bush, which was the ality to get a room on your side and make them laugh and for mitt romney, who has lon struggled with a likeability gap with barack obama, it's important for him to show that he doesn't take himself too seriously. ne: looked like george bush, when he became president they're all laughingat meso i might as well laugh atyself.
here i w it could have a impact that those reagan-carter, the only reagan-cter debate i'm sorry, there waspicture and portrayal of ronald reagan all but lucifer in pinstripes. lo and behold hh is not that bad. he is funny, amiable and warm. although much in different time and era to a degree like mitt romney. he was portrayed in ads callous 47%, evil rich guy and private capital guy and people saw him and say, is not so bad. jokes replay on all the news channels as ey do from t al smit dinner and a whole different impression. does that warm him up to people who might be sitting on the fence, all rit, maybe this guy's okay? >> sure and it helped him throughout, the expectations that were set about mitt romney by barack obama in six months of attacked as, and were said about mitt romney by the establishment press, mi romney h had a fun time and pretty easyime it
turns oufoiling that because it was so much of a caricature. so comedy helps that. you remember, nl, barack obama said of hillary clinton you're likable enough during t debates? neil: s, yes. >> there is sch a thing as likable enough. is not probable that mitt romney will be considered more likable than barack obama who is the youngish, first afrin-american, other of two, who go on "sportscenter" and that stuff. he is lot hipper than mitt romney who sort of hip t be square. so maybe he is never going to be as likable as him but what we have seen is that tt romney's favorability number, which means that people are oy wit you, has gone up. those things are correlated. if romney can demonstrate he is an okay guy, he can laugh -pat himself, tell a je and he can do that, that helps ople find him acceptable in this caseou may be talking about somebody who is likable enough. neil: i love your cment about hip to b square, one
of his said i came here tonight because they wanted me to b the designated driver. just blew the house away and deadpan delivery. i think he was reinforcing and quite happy in his, you know, maybe nerdy skin and just sowing the wor that and relishing it. we'll see. that is tough to say the president wasn't funny. we expect him to be funny. is very funny and very glib but i don'think people expected that mitt romney. we'll see if it ps out. chris, you are as kblib and funny as you are brilliant my fend. thank you for joining tonight. >> nerds unite. neil: nerds unite. thanks, chri stirewalt. here's what happens when you throw hillary cnton under the bus. she drives you off the cliff. what the secrary state said in a women's magazine has the white house fearing it jus lost women period.
wooohooo....hahaahahaha! oh...there you go. woho....hahaahahaha! i'm gonna stand oh...there yup to her! no you're not. i know. you ow ronny fol who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico sure are happy. how happy are they jimmy? happier than a witch in a broom factory. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.
neil: di hi just knock barack for a loop no not on the bengzi thing but this woman thing? in the west wing someone wants to get a hold of hillary clinton and just throttle. it started innocently ough in a marie claire interview when the secretary o state was asked about the challenges women face with work and family. cutting to the chase, hilly essentially told them to shut up. ian snd whining. i applaud her fnk response. i don't like whining. for example, when fat people blame the condition on thyroid. by the way the camera does add pounds. it's true. back to i will had. for women it could put this democratic ticket in hell. not the best timing since team romney-ryan have be getting "fast and furious" with females. after being thrown under the s on libya as some see it,
is hillary cnton getting away as fast as she can from that bus as some now increasingly see it? we are on it. state department saying that clinton's comments were takeout of ctext. i actually hahave the full interview here. i will delve into it re. i don't think they we taken out of context. tea party activist is here and saying this is dage to the president and it is done. i don think she said anything offensive. i think she was just saying we all he to suck it up and deal withit. we'll get into the particuls. if you hear the clips and reaction, you'll think that she was demeaning or ripping women for complaining and that willo enough damage, right? >> oh, absolutely,eil. you know paging eva longoria and the rest of the whining pathic women out there on this war on women brigade, you know, hillary clinton just made the case for every woman in america
to vote for mitt romney because guess what? this is america. and yo lfe is all a circumstce based upon your choices. hillary clinton simply she has coletely debunked this myth somehow there is warn women when peop are t there wanting free choice and wanting won to makeheirwn choices. this is a big win for women and i think it --. neil: she wasframiig it in a way that made it kind of odd. she w asked about, a lot of wome who juggle career and kids and all o th. she went on to say if you're not happy do sothing about it. li in time you have endless choices. mononey certainly helps. you don't have to money to go for it but you have to work on yourself. do something. what is so novel about that? is essentially the essence of people who want to succeed d in life anyway? male or female. shes saying if youant
go to something in li, at is your choice, quit whining about it and go for the gus stow. >> neil,he key word, there is a key word there, women who are organized and hav a support system in place who have kids and do quitwell. but t's take it even further than that if you want to separate working women and men not working. how we find out to get into those binders that governor romney w looking because therare aot of women out there who would loveethe opportunity to work for such a strong, moral coageous leader like mitt romney. neil: that binder comment, you would think h was like, going through penthouse here because the present was seizg on that today in virginia. want you to react to this real quick. >> sure. >> when the next president and congress could tip the balance of the highest court in the land in a w that turns back the clock for women and familiesor decades to come, you don't want someone who needs to ask for binders of women. you want a presidentho is
already appointed 2 unbelievable women to the preme court of the united ptates. neil: what do you make of that? >> well, i think it is just pretty pathetic the democrat party and this pattic women whining brigade are out there actually trying to convince women we're so helpless and so needy and so pathetii we need man i the white house making decisions for us. there is such thing as going backwards. women are t largest minority in this country, so, i think that is why you see women shifting towards mitt romney because they're just not buyi all the bs coming out of this party. neil: well, you speak your mind, katrina. i will say that. good seeing you again. thank you very, very much. >> thank you, neil. neil: like father, not like son. why nds going tobat r mitt despite dad.
neil: his d might have doubts about mitt, does not mean ran paul does. prove tea party kentucky reblican senator storm new hampshire. state is popular and big government is not. senator, always a pleasure to have you wth us. thks for joining us. >> glad to be wth you, neil. if i were mitt romney naturally i wa youthere. father ctainly popular there. libertarian view of conservative view limit government extremely popular there. is tha a sign that tt romney is worried there? >> well, you know, i don't think so necessarily. i think that they have just asked me to go todifferent place, oh, new hampshire, nevada, some of these places have appeal to libertaria libertarian-minded republicans and i think i can help to get the enthusiasm gng and get our base energized. >> bause the reason why i asked, if your father still been kind of, you know not
so peachykeen on mitt romney. certainly not peachy keen on barack obama. i wouldn't know who he votes for. s he told you? if he is not aggressively supporti mitt mney, what is he dng >> i'm not authorized to speak on h behalf. i have to talk to him at thksgiving see what i'm allowed to say. rit now he hasn't told me one way or anotr. neil: he doesn't mind, you, heoesn't mind you going on the stump for mitt romney and to the degree yo have shown your suppo? >> no. and heealizes that we're different people. there are many things that i will support, many caus that i will champion that he has championed for years. but we won't always be the same. and i consider the politics of thelection to be the strategy f trying to get the best person, the next person between governor romneyand obama istark. i dd worry about 23 million people out of work. i woy about businesses are terrifieied of this president. i think we have to have a
ange in direction for the country. while ron paul wamy first pick, i'm very happy to be pporting governor romney and i think he will make a differce. neil: do you think he is the before shot at getting serious tax budget reform? the argume for, getting an extension, senator, in all the tax rates that expire, spenng cuts, is, that, if it could be cobbled together with a al to seriously reform the tax code, the whole budget process, mitt romneis the guyto do it? conversely they say punting on this isn't the answer. it would hurt a president-elect romney if that were to comeo pass. what do you think? >>'m of the opinion rather than trying to get overall taxreform in one huge paage,hat will take a year after romney's elected. my advice to him, break it up into pieces and immediately start passin mething to show the amican people we will help them. corporate nng tax, many democrats agree we should lower it. why don't we lower the
corporate income taxnd not make it part of some 2,000 page bill. let's just lower the corporate income tax and if people say, that will add to the defit, let's all offset it with spending cuts. neil: what about the romney position, when it comes to, with lowering taxes for acro board particularly fothe rich? that it will be revenue neutral? i take enough credits deductions allowances away. it is a wash. the rich will remain paying 60% of the taxes as they do now? but his b emphasis seems to be in thesedebates, senar, it is revenue neutra that struck many as a surise, and ty were expecting a big tax cut d now they fear looking at big tax cut. might not be a simpler tax system but but won't be a big tax cut. what do you feel about that. >> renue neutral tax cuts don'excite me. i want to stimulate the private sector by leaving more money in the private sector. en i campaign aund kentucky, ohio, new hampshire i want more money
left in the pockets of people who earned it. neil: he is not doing that. is not doing that. >> well, i will have my voice. that will be my voice because my voice willbe, we lance it. i don't want todd the deficit either,but we balance it with spending cuts. i'm for getting rid of deductns. neil: senator, i'm sorry, he doesn't talk as much about that. i'm not saying vaguely, you don't know what specifically he will cut. pbs is one of them. go ahead. >> the reason i make the point is,hat everybody's hassling governor romney wir deduions add up to enough to balance the tax reforms so it is revenue neutral? my point would be firs, we want mor money left in the private sector it doesn't have to be neutra if you want it to balance so it doesn't adto the decit let's cut government spending. that should be the message. whenever we grown the economy we lowered rates for ebb. we got rid of deductions, when weowered the rate, under reaan we cut the
unemploynt rate in half and several years of growth of five or 6%. to get 12 million jobs you can't be revenue neutral. i say lower taxesor everybody and cut government spending. neil: there is a concept. getting growth of fiver 6%. the was a time we did that during the reagan yearsnd boom years coming out of recession, exactly what we did quarter in, quarter out. by comparison that is five times faster than the economy is growing right now. you thk that was then and can't happen now? when we come back with rand paul, how specifically it can happen now. can happen now. stickround. ltes the stest. so, which , based on this chart ? don't rush into it, i'm not looking for the fastest answer. obviously verizon. okay, i have a different chart. going that way, does that make a difference ? look at verizon. it's so much more than the other ones. so what if we just changed the format altogethe? isn't at the exa same t it's prettclear.
average $312 a year immediately, for those on medicare right now. that's what will happen. medicare trust fund will become insolvent in 2016. neil: i never know where they get tese numbers but anyway, randaul heard what do you think of that, rand? >> i think medicare evybody agrees medicare is abou $35 trillion in the hole as is and has to be reformed. i told the president, ce-to-face, a year and a half ago, that if he would come togetherith us and reform, we cld save medicare and save social security, that he would be elected in a landslide. several republicans told him this and he chose not to workith us. and i think that is really the failure of leadership is. he hasn't reached out to us at all. he doesn't invite republicans to do anying. neil: senato ithink you have had, counted a failure among republicans and you experienced this. you comep with a very bold proposal.
let's get being nam-pamby about this. look for a big cut first year. be substantial andnd quit pussyfooting. they left you at the altar. not everyone. i remember that phenomenon. i deeply admid your guts but theydidn't want to go t with you on the 30 rail there >> well, you know, i think entitlements, if we don't fix them, and paul ryan has been pretty bold talking about how to fix entitlemen. neilhe was the house version of you. they did the same to him. you think he would have, you know, did he use his deodorant that day. everne avoided him. >> well, you know, i'm of the opinion that of the old days are gone. the day where you coul scare people and say, oh, republicans will take away your medicare. neil: you're right, you're right. ablutely right. here w go again. i want, if republicans really mean what they say and i tink they do, and democrats mean what they say about eventually getting
entitlements under control and i actually want to say i believe they do, ist just the election we've got to get past, to each side, things calm down andhas when we get something done or what? >> i fear mayb things will have to get worse in our country and we'll ha to approach a debt crisis befo people will be serious out it because people do worry about the politics of this. they're afraid to say that the age for social security or the age for medicare needs t gradually rise in order to save these programs. people are still afraid to say that. but i think if you're honest, i think right now the election and the population has changed where i think they atually will reward people w are honest and who admit we haveroblems and say, yes, republicans and democrats just need to throw out the politics and let's o ahead and fix these problems. neil: well you know, i'm not bling you smoke, senator but the reason why i always enjoyed chatting with you call them as you see them and get ris of getting rapped on both sides. i mention the republican
thg. you criticized romney approach on defense spending not giving an inch and something has to give there. there is certainly room for cuttg in defense. that brought out evebody and uncle in the conservative mom no, no. defee is sacrosct. you were saying it isn't. it should be the part of what should be looked at in every budget overhau. >> ultimate compromise. only way you everbalance the budget, conservatives like myself believe national fense is ry important, compromise, not eve dollar is spent on the military is sacred and well-spent. liberalss n ery dollar on welfare is wll spent. we coromise and bring both down. we do compromisen washington. we raise military spending and raise domestic spending every year. that's why we're a trillion dollars in the hole. neil: we canind a middle ground. not that i could broker a deal, sometimes, senator falls on me to save the country. maybe whate can do is what
you're saying. democratshould be open to reforming entitlements andd3 at least slowing their growth. okay, republicans should n be so dmatic about defense, can't be touched. th alone would get us moving toward an endgame re. but we don't. it is the election magically going to present that opportunity? >> well, i thkhat's happening is circumstances will make people address this. circumstances are getting worse. entitlements are growing so rapidly they will consume all of the money in the budget within a few years. so ihink circumstances will tell all of us we have to do it. to it is inevitability. i don't care whether you're republican o or democrat, it is inevitability you will have to fix entitlements because there's not enough young people and there is lot of old people. the is demographic shi and we're living longer. these are factsand they're inescapable. the questn is, will we do it with this election or are we going to it until things get worse and we
begin printing up so much money, that pres begin to rise dramatically and everyby is worried about a chaotic situation or whether we fix it in a reasonable rational way,raally, but get started now. that's the real question, whher we wait for chaos or we do it now. neil: senator, thank you, very, very mh. od seeing you again. >> thank you, nei neil: senenator rand paul. he tched on a couple of things i emphasize before we cut away, very, very quickly. is easy to blame democrat it is easy for the docrats to blame republicann. i'm not here to blame anyone. i want to stress here, guys we've got a big o pile of problems that have come up over decade of sort of blind side he hadly spending money we didt have and never telling the people the truth. the direction we're in to the senator's point is a direction can not be sustained notwith money we sustained notwith money we ha, and promise the capital one cash rewar card gives you a 50% annual bonus. and everyone, but her...
likes 50% more cas but, i have an idea. do you want a princess dress? yes how about some cupcakes? yes llipop? s! do you want an etch a sketch? s! do you want 50% more cash? no you got talent. [ le announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card. th a 50% annual cash bonus it's the card for people who like me cash. what's in your wallet? i usually say that. what's in your wallet? energy is beinproduced to power our lives. while ener development cos with some risk,
north america's natural gas producers are committed to safely and responsiy providing generations of clean-burning energy for our country, drling thousds of feet below freswater sources within self-contained well syste. rigorous practices help ensu our operations are safe and clean r our communities and the enronment. we're america's natural gas.